Debate contribution: Autism Services
Debate contribution by Mr Danny Donnelly on .
- MLA
- Mr Danny Donnelly
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 12 May 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Autism Services
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5528629
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I thank all Members who have contributed to the debate. I will highlight some of the points that resonate with how far-reaching and important the issue is. There has been a lot of agreement, which is good. I think that Robbie Butler suggested that the debate was not so much a debate as a consensus, and some key themes have shone through. Fragmented services came up time and time again, and the Independent Autism Reviewer strongly highlighted that in her report. Quite a few Members mentioned respite services, particularly in the context of the BBC documentary 'I Am Not Okay', which was first broadcast in September 2024. Shockingly, that is now more than 18 months ago. As we have just heard from the Minister, some of the mums now have respite services for their children. That took 18 months, however.
Yes. I will.
Thank you. I agree absolutely that it is because of a failure to provide early intervention that those families have moved to a point of crisis at which they require that level of care. Another theme that came up time and time again was the long waiting lists for diagnosis for adults and children. Thousands of adults who have realised that they may have autism are now on waiting lists to find out whether they do. Another glaring theme was the need for better mental health services for people with autism. Those issues are connected, and people with autism suffer a lot worse mental health conditions. There needs to be earlier intervention, and services need to be provided. I will respond to a few of the issues that were raised. Timothy Gaston made a point about the Barnett consequentials that come here as a result of the services that are delivered in GB. He is right that Barnett consequentials come to Northern Ireland because of services provided there, but we need to look at the ever-growing health service budget and ask where those priorities have been. The Minister responded with some of the things that are being done in the health service, but, as we have seen from the Independent Autism Reviewer's report and have heard time and time again from families who come into our constituency offices, things are not OK. Services are not being delivered reliably, waiting lists for assessment and diagnosis are far too long, and people are being failed. Many of the concerns that have been raised in today's debate have been consistently reflected to me during the work that I have been undertaking with the disability community as part of developing my private Member's Bill on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD). I have heard about systems that are fragmented, inconsistent and too difficult to navigate and about the lived experience of poor accountability, inaccessible services, failures in transition planning, inadequate mental health support and the exhaustion of constantly having to fight for basic rights and adjustments. I commend the work of the Independent Autism Reviewer, Ema Cubitt, who recently highlighted those fragmented services in her powerful first annual report. I encourage all Members to read it. What is striking about those experiences is that they are not isolated incidents: the same themes continue to emerge across health, education, transport, employment and community life. That needs to be addressed. After discussion with members of the autism community today, I want to be clear: autistic people have always existed in our society. It is about being recognised and understood and having the ability to seek the support that they may previously have been denied or been unable to access. The responsibility now is to ensure that services reflect reality and are capable of providing the support that people need. I reiterate what my colleague Nuala said: if the Department is not clear about what post-diagnosis support should be provided, how can anyone else be expected to understand? I thank the Member for proposing the amendment today. We support it.
668 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.03 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.95).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- Subject area: Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits.
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.95 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 1.00 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:37 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.